User talk:Guild of Deals/TBT
some have been trashed but i cba to strike off which -- 14:57, 22 February 2009 :Delete or strike over? I was gonna make one of these myself. --'-Chaos-' 15:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC) ::Just strike 'em out. --☭[[user:Guild of Deals|'Guild']]*talk* 15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC) working on all the PvE ones. Gotten through Rt and now i have to go do some work -- 17:07, 22 February 2009 :well im not doing the pve ones (unless its so bad that you make a special note of it), but any pvps i agree with ill do. Rawrawr Dinosaur 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) ::none are absolutely terribad, just not worth keeping. -- 17:14, 22 February 2009 :::then go throw your 2 cents in on frostys idea (link on his userpage). Rawrawr Dinosaur 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC) bump -- 10:23, 23 February 2009 :Imo, bolden the untrashed builds or move the trashed builds to the bottom of the page to make finding them easier. --'-Chaos-' 13:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC) guild (or anyone idgf) fix the layout. Rawrawr Dinosaur 22:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC) :Bah... someone is really bad at striking text. Also, lol enters. --- -- ( ) (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC) ::TBH you EC'd me deleting all the striked builds, lol. Oh well, I'll do it another time. --☭[[user:Guild of Deals|'Guild']]*talk* 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Can we put untested-testing builds on this too? Some have been around for ages and just really need to be trashed. Toraen ''Dirt to da face!'' 02:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC) :sure imo. --'-Chaos-' 13:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Why is your rating 4 on that reclaim spirits build when you want it trashed? --- ' Ressmonkey ' (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC) :i put that there i think. but yeah, GoD, change your vote nubcake -- 23:06, 3 March 2009 ::It's not a terrible build at all, TBH. --☭[[user:Guild of Deals|'Guild']]*talk* 23:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) How about we just drop the Good and Other sections? That would be a start to solving the problems here on the wiki. 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC) :There are some builds in good that are good. For example, when I posted Searing Flames way, it was vetted with a 3.9 (good). Now if anybody thinks SFway is trash, gtfo. --- ' Ressmonkey ' (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC) ::^ 23:08, 5 March 2009 :: truthfully, just about all builds need revetting :/. And no, dropping good and other wouldn't solve any problems, the problem lies in the Great section, the fact it accounts for ~half of the builds in working builds (i.e. builds that are vetted and not archived). There's something wrong when half of the builds submitted end up in the best category...(and no, i don't believe it's because we're just that good...) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 23:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC) :::Another problem is archiving. We have a fuckload of builds that need to be archived. we are supposed to be a site that reflects the meta, and yet we have a ton of builds that aren't meta. people also post bad builds just for the sake of having them on the site (rt/p comes to mind). Rawrawr Dinosaur 23:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Which Rt/P? Spearchucker (ewwww), some sort of fall back GvG runner (no idea I dont GvG), or some sort of channeling HA with SoC and fall back (which is used frequently). --- ' Ressmonkey ' (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC) :::::the WoR rit with a spear, how is that relevant to the discussion? Rawrawr Dinosaur 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::Its not. --- ' Ressmonkey ' (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::Awesome thanks for your oh so helpful contributions to the wiki. Rawrawr Dinosaur 00:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Move User:Guild of Deals/Hitlist--Relyk 03:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)